Police body cams in Worcester could have provided more details to incident where officers were seen punching suspects (Viewpoint)

Last week, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh announced that the city would begin implementing a body-worn camera program for its police department. After a yearlong pilot of the police body camera program, Boston has committed a $2 million investment for the adoption of a full-scale, permanent program.

Worcester should follow suit and act to adopt a body-worn camera program that prioritizes accountability, privacy of civilians and transparency.

Earlier this summer, Worcester Police Chief Steven M. Sargent said that plans to equip local police officers with body cameras remain a work in progress, and there is no set schedule for when it might happen.

One week later, a Worcester bystander took video of several officers punching two brothers and slamming one up against a truck during a struggle. Worcester police defended that the brothers were involved in a fight, and the brothers themselves escalated the violence when police intervened. Because the bystander's video doesn't capture the full scene, what happened in that parking lot remains unclear.

The violent incident did make one thing clear, though: it's time to act. If one or more of the police officers had been wearing body cameras, it's possible that more details would have been captured.

The truth is, Worcester's police body camera program has been a work in progress for four years. In fact, two summers ago, the ACLU of Massachusetts sent our model policy to Worcester Police Department and 39 other police departments across Massachusetts. We didn't just drop the suggested policy in the mail: We also offered to provide assistance to the police chiefs in the 40 municipalities to help develop policies that encourage accountability and protect civilian privacy. Our offer still stands.

Used correctly, with the right policies in place, body-worn cameras can advance civil rights, help build community trust, and improve safety on both sides of the badge. Boston's program announcement coincided with a new report that found that the number of complaints against Boston police officers who used body-worn cameras, as well as the officers' reported use of excessive force, dropped slightly during the one-year pilot.

Of course, body cameras are not a cure-all for police accountability - and we appreciate Chief Sargent's thoughtful approach to the development of a Worcester police body camera program that works for everyone. He's right that there are a lot of issues to consider - but our model policy was drafted expressly to help police get it right when they introduce body-worn cameras.

Take civilian privacy, for example. Body-worn cameras should not be used as a surveillance device to track or monitor people exercising their First Amendment rights, and they should not include technologies like built-in face surveillance capabilities. Police body camera programs should function as a check and balance on police power, not yet another tool of warrantless government spying.

Or consider public accountability: It's critical, for example, that the police departments implement a strict prohibition against officers reviewing body-worn camera footage before writing incident reports or giving testimony. Letting officers preview videos of an incident before giving a statement can undermine the credibility of their statements and the integrity of investigations.

Boston is just the latest city across the country to make the move to enhance police accountability, deter misconduct by officers and civilians alike, and support positive police-community relations. Worcester can't wait four more years to adopt a police body-worn camera program.

_________

Chris Robarge is the Central Massachusetts organizer for the ACLU of Massachusetts.